2007-01-30 10:53:26 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
While I firmly beleive that what people do in their own time is their own business, and drug testing won't show if you're using at work or at home, I would not want to hire someone who's addicted to crack or meth, or something similar as odd are very good that in the long run there will be problems of one kind or another with that person. And what other way is there to find out?
2007-01-30 11:03:44 · answer #1 · answered by yeraluzer 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Usually there is a contract you sign upon being hired. If you read the contract it explains this. So you have given them the right to drug test you if they have a probable cause. Let me clear that up for you a little bit. If you get hurt on the job because you are stoned or whatever. That costs the company money to take care of your medical bills. In order to keep companies from going bankrupt, they have the right to drug test you to see if the money comes out of your pocket or theirs. It also keeps them from being sued for not paying for your work related injury. When you get hired and you sign the agreement forms. You are telling them they have the right to drug test you. It states this in the contract you sign. If you don't wnat to be drug tested, then don't sign the form and don't take the job. There is no violation here.
2007-01-30 19:06:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think this is a complicated questions with two sides:
First: A private employer can establish any criteria for employment as long as it doesn't violate equal employment opportunity laws (race, gender, religion, etc). Those are apparently constitutional. No body's bothered to make "illegal search and seizure illegal in the workplace.
That takes me to the second side: Requiring somebody to piss in a cup or give a blood sample or sample of their hair so they could get a job seems a little intrusive.
I suppose I'd accept it if congressmen, senators, and people who run for president had the same requirements. Come to think of it, why don't they?
2007-01-30 19:05:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope - this is a perfectly legal condition of employment.
Besides - your showing up either high on drugs or the aftereffects of drugs violates the rights of your co-workers to a safe and decent work environment.
2007-01-30 19:02:56 · answer #4 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nope. What "rights" would be violated?
The employer has the right to have a work force free of drugs.
HOWEVER, the program should include testing for alcohol and be fairly administered.
2007-01-30 18:59:14 · answer #5 · answered by ckm1956 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way. An employer has the right to know that ALL of his/her employees are drug free. And that goes for alcohol as well.
I certainly wouldn't want to work with someone who was high. Stop to think of the dangers this person could/would cause for everyone.
2007-01-30 19:02:28 · answer #6 · answered by Barry 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your rights are not violated if you are told before accepting the job that it is a condition of employment. You have then agreed to testing by accepting the job.
In our society employers are held to be responsible for the actions of their employees and to provide a safe place to work. This is one of the ways they do that.
2007-01-30 19:05:55 · answer #7 · answered by Bruce H 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No way. Every job should drug test. Maybe it'll keep more people from being soooooo incredibly stupid.
2007-01-30 19:02:52 · answer #8 · answered by ~Squoosh~ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No!!! ... I say drug test everyone! I dont want a dope fiend working for me or making anything I am going to buy or eat!.
2007-01-30 19:02:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope. Yer at work to work -- not to recover from your stupid drug habits.
2007-01-30 18:57:54 · answer #10 · answered by JiveSly 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋